M/S Nirmal Fibres Pvt. Limited vs Cce & St, Meerut Ii
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 3654 of 2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned demand cannot be sustained because the goods in question, Polyester Staple Fibre manufactured from P.E.T. waste during the disputed period, fall within the exemption under Notification No. 5/06-CE dated 01/03/2006 as that Notification stood after its retrospective amendment by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2014 (5th Schedule), and a duty demand that rests on the unamended position cannot survive once the retrospective exemption applies to the same goods for the same period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 21/COMMR/M-II/2012 dated 29/08/2012 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut II.]
For Approval and signature :
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :
the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :
copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Department Authorities?
M/s Nirmal Fibres Pvt. Limited Appellant
Versus
CCE & ST, Meerut II Respondent
Appearance
Shri S.S. Dabas, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Final Order No. 51720/2015 Dated : 21/05/2015
Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
The appellant are manufacturers of Polyester Staple Fibre and Polypropylene Non-Woven Spun Bond Fabric chargeable to Central Excise duty. The dispute is in respect of Polyester Staple Fibre manufactured from Polyethylene Teraphthalate (P.E.T.) waste during the period from 29/06/2010 to 31/08/2010. The Commissioner by the impugned order has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 71,42,506/- against the appellant alongwith interest thereon under Section 11AB and has imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Section 11AC. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Both the sides agree that in view of retrospective amendment to the Notification No. 5/06-CE dated 01/3/06 by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2014 (5th Schedule), the goods manufactured by the appellant from P.E.T. waste during the period from 29/06/2010 to 31/08/2010 would be fully exempt from duty. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.)
(Rakesh Kumar)
Member (Technical)
(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)
Member (Judicial)
PK
??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free